1. Social Learning Theory
Edwin Sutherland (1947) Differential Association
Sykes and Matza (1957) Techniques of Neutralization
Burgess and Akers (1968) Differential Reinforcement Theory
Akers (1973-present) Social Learning Theory

2. Differential Association
Edwin Sutherland
Ph.D from University of Chicago, 1913
Focused on Chicago School question: how are delinquent cultures “transmitted” across generations? Published and revised in his textbook from
Differential Association
A “general theory” for all types of crime
Final version stated in nine “principles”

3. Differential Association
1. Criminal behavior is learned (it is not invented): In interactions with others in intimate groups
2. Differential associations vary: Intensity, priority, duration, frequency
3. Learning includes (a) techniques; (b) attitudes that are contained in “definitions” of the legal code
4. Delinquency is caused by an excess of definitions in favor of law violation
5. Learning criminal behavior involves the same processes and mechanisms as other behaviors

4. Criticisms of D.A. What are “Definitions” in favor of law violation?
Attitudes that unconditionally approve crime?
Rationalizations that justify crime in some cases?
Attitudes that are conducive to crime?
How exactly is crime “learned?”

5. Sykes and Matza “Techniques of Neutralization”
Attempt to elaborate Sutherland’s theory
Denial of victim
Denial of injury
Condemn the condemners
Appeal to higher loyalties
Not attitudes that require crime, but rather excuse or justify in some cases

6. D.A. to “Social Learning”
Burgess and Akers (1966)
“Differential Reinforcement Theory”
Added Operant conditioning (reinforcers/punishers)
Akers’ Social Learning Theory (1973-present)
Added “Vicarious learning,” made modifications

7. Concepts in S.L.T. Differential Association Definitions
Differential Reinforcement
Imitation

8. Social Learning Theory (Akers)
Exposure to
definitions
or different
role models
Balance of
definitions or
role models
produces initial
behaviors
Positive or
negative
reinforcement
Definitions Behaviors
Role models
R(+/-) DA

9. Exposure to Delinquent Peers
Why S.L. measure?
Strength of Relationship
R’s = are common
Criticisms
Measuring delinquency twice
Causal (time) ordering (birds of a feather

10. Pro-Criminal Attitudes
Why a measure of S.L.?
Strength of relationship? R’s > .4
Criticism
CAUSAL ORDERING: Rationalization are
simply post-hoc excuses, they do not “cause”
crime, but only allow the criminal to wiggle
out of trouble

11. Beyond Surveys Establishing causation via experiments with offenders
What is the policy implication of S.L.T.?
Measure both “intermediate objectives” and long-term outcomes

12. Don Andrews (1980) Group treatment for Prisoners and Probationers
Manipulated content (definitions), group leaders (quality of role model), and self-management
Reductions in recidivism ranged from 10-25%

13. Achievement Place Houses with a married couple serving as “parents”
Served as “role models”
Token economy + verbal physical praise
Peer groups
Evaluations are mixed (some positive)
Tend to lose positive effects after release
Be wary of “peer culture” programs

14. Cognitive Programs Changing the way criminals think
“Criminal Thinking Errors”
(Rationalizations, Definitions)
Changing how criminals think
Anger management
Prosocial Skills

15. SUMMARY OF S.L.T GOOD BAD 1. Causal ordering?
1. Substantial Empirical Support
2. Useful Policy Implications
3. Scope and Parsimony
BAD
1. Causal ordering?
2. Explaining early childhood?
A. Does all antisocial behavior have to be “learned?”